Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PERSONA TEMPLATE
Draw a quick sketch of your persona
iENDER:
VELOF
,cCUPAT
ESCRIP
Appendix 1 - Media Resources - Persona
Has to be possible to use materials in different orders and with different examples
Should be materials that can work on radio, print and TV/Internet
Focus on fill / talk shows / “magazines”, rather than daily news
Minimum demand on journalists
Should be entertaining / interesting (NOT boring)
Should start with examples – a hook – not with a concept
Should use plain language (build on lessons from work with plain language summaries)
The idea: Packages of materials linked to structured press releases and a press release
service
Structured press releases
o What’s the hook?
o What’s the claim?
o What’s the bottom line?
o What’s the basis for the claim?
o Has all the reliable evidence been considered?
o Are the results relevant?
o Has the treatment been tested fairly?
o What are the results?
o What’s the likelihood of being misled by the play of chance?
Resources to attach to press releases that explain the relevant concept(s) (as a rule, one
concept per press release / story)
o E.g. brief explanations, longer explanations with examples, audio clips or
visualisations, pictograms, cartoons, stories
o Include suggestions/tips for talk shows or call in programmes or other ways of using /
the press releases
A system for identifying topics/”news” and sending out press releases / packages
o Use (and evaluate) different approaches, including:
scanning the news and ads
using stories from initiatives like “Behind the headlines” (in Australia,
Canada, UK, US) (e.g. Health News Review
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/)
Cochrane and other sources of new systematic reviews
Collaboration with journals (e.g. BMJ, Lancet, JAMA)
A rapid response service for journalists who want help with stories
o Get help from Cochrane and journals preparing structured press releases, if we
collaborate with them
Appendix 2 - Guidelines structured press releases
Informed Health Choices Project
Mass media resources 2014 02 20
Guidelines for a rapid response service for structured press releases
Principles guiding our thinking
o Organise a “year of fair tests” or “fair test campaign” in partnership with, for
example, Cochrane, journals, relevant associations/organisations
Use “Professor Fair” as logo / source / branding
o Prof Fair hates unfair tests and is always trying to cultivate fair tests and weed out
unfair tests
o Can be used to introduce humour + be the “person” assessing/commenting on the
claim (rather than “we”), to distinguish what the study investigators or people
making the claim said from what Prof Fair is says.
Linked tools for journalists
o A checklist/tipsheet based on the questions in the structured press release (and
drawing on other tipsheets/checklist for journalists) + “periodic table” (overview of
the concepts) linked to the checklist
o Guides and training for journalists structured around the structured press release
and resources that explain the IHC Key Concepts.
o Draw on existing resources for journalists (e.g. Tips for Understanding Studies
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/)
o Communication strategies (e.g. the glossary, the resources that explain the IHC Key
Concepts, a guide for using structured press releases incorporating ideas from plain
language summaries, fact boxes)
o Networks - Build a network of independent experts linked to the press release
service (building on Makerere Rapid Response Service); also use experts from
Cochrane and journals if we collaborate with them. Work with Ugandan journalist
network + other networks of journalists in developing the resources (and
disseminating them).
Links between resources/games for kids and media resources
o Engage and use kids when possible/relevant in the resources that explain the
concepts
o Include relevant games/resources for kids in the media resources
o Send press releases to teachers for stories that are relevant/interesting for kids
o Include contests/games/puzzles, if relevant, for explanations of some of the concepts
How the IHC Key Concepts relate to the structured press releases
What’s the hook?
o What will draw the “reader” (audience) in (and sell the story to the editor)? What
makes the story relevant right now?
o Might include pitches / stories / personal experience / evidence-based anecdotes
What’s the claim?
o What’s the problem that needs treatment (and how big a problem is it)?
o What’s the treatment?
o What’s the comparison?
o What are the outcomes (that were measured and that should have been measured)?
What’s the basis for the claim?
1.1 An outcome may be associated with a treatment, but not caused by the treatment
1.2 Personal experiences or anecdotes (stories) are an unreliable basis for determining the
effects of most treatments
1.3 Hope can lead to unrealistic expectations about the effects of treatments
1.4 Widely used or traditional treatments are not necessarily beneficial or safe
1.5 Assuming new, brand-named or more expensive treatments are better than alternatives
is not justified
1.6 Assuming that more of a treatment is better than less is not justified
1.7 Beliefs about how a treatment works are not a reliable basis for predicting its effects
1.8 Opinions of experts or authorities alone do not provide a reliable basis for deciding on the
benefits and harms of treatments
1.9 Conflicting interests may result in misleading claims about the effects of treatments
1.10 Large, dramatic effects of treatments are rare
Has all the reliable evidence been considered?
4.1 Single treatment tests can be misleading
4.2 Non-systematic reviews of treatment tests can be misleading
4.3 Judgements about the certainty of the evidence about the effects of treatments should
be based on systematic reviews
Are the results relevant?
6.1 Systematic reviews of fair tests of treatments should measure outcomes that are
important
6.2 Systematic reviews of studies of treatments in animals or highly selected groups of
people may not be relevant
6.3 How the treatments are delivered in fair tests may influence the relevance of results of
systematic reviews
6.4 The results for a selected group of people within treatment tests can be misleading
Has the treatment been tested fairly?
2.1 Testing the effects of treatments requires appropriate comparisons
2.2 Apart from the treatments being compared, the comparison groups need to be similar
('Like needs to be compared with like')
2.4 People in the groups being compared need to be cared for similarly other than the two
treatments being compared
2.5 If possible, people should not know which of the treatments being compared they are
receiving
2.6 Outcomes should be measured in the same way (fairly) in treatment comparison groups
2.7 It is important to measure outcomes in everyone who was included in the treatment
comparison groups
What were the results?
5.1 Treatments may have beneficial and harmful effects
5.2 Relative effects of treatments alone can be misleading
What’s the likelihood of being misled by the play of chance?
3.1 Small studies with few events are usually not informative and may be misleading
3.2 The use of p-values to indicate the probability of something having occurred by chance
may be misleading
3.3 Saying that a difference is statistically significant or that it is not statistically significant
can be misleading
3.4 Understanding a confidence interval may be necessary to understand the reliability of an
estimated treatment effect
An example of a structured press release
Energy drinks could be bad for the heart
Health& Living
TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2014 18:42
WRITTEN BY DIANA NABIRUMA
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30209:-energy-drinks-
could-be-bad-for-the-heart&catid=58:health-living&Itemid=89
Press release
No reason to worry about energy drinks being bad for your heart
What’s the hook?
Should you be worried about using energy drinks? A recent study reported in the Observer suggests
maybe you should be.
What’s the claim?
The study claims that energy drinks could be bad for the heart
What’s the basis for the claim?
A study showed that energy drinks high in caffeine and taurine (an amino acid said to enhance
athletic performance) increased heart rates by six per cent in the 18 people that were part of the
study.
What does Professor Fair think of this study?
The results aren’t relevant. Energy drinks may or may not have other good or bad effects, but there
is not reliable evidence that they are bad for the heart.
Has all the reliable evidence been considered?
No. There may be other, better studies that have addressed this question.
Are the results of this study relevant to the claim?
No. The outcome that was measured (heart rates) is a surrogate outcome (see below). It is not of
direct practical importance. If energy drinks cause a small increase in heart rate, that doesn’t mean
they are bad for your heart.
Did the study authors test the treatment fairly?
Professor Fair can’t tell. He could not find a report of the study. The story did not explain how the
energy drinks were tested and did not say where the study was reported.
What are the results?
Professor Fair thinks they are uninteresting
What’s the likelihood that the study authors were misled by the play of chance?
In addition to not measuring outcomes that are important to people, the study only included 18
people. That might be enough to measure a change in heart rate, but it is not enough to measure
important effects, including presumed benefits – like better athletic performance, increased
concentration and maintaining alertness – and presumed adverse effects – like heart disease,
addiction, anxiety and insomnia.
Resource
Surrogate outcomes
Surrogate outcomes are outcome measures that are not of direct practical importance but are
believed to reflect outcomes that are important.
For example, blood pressure is not directly important to patients but it is often used as an outcome
in studies because it is a risk factor for stroke and heart attacks. Showing that a medicine lowers
blood pressure is not the same as showing that it prevents strokes or heart attacks.
The effects of treatments on surrogate outcomes usually do not provide a reliable indication of
effects on outcomes that are important.
For more information see . . . [link to visualization/text or audio clips of examples of how relying on
surrogate outcomes has caused harm (e.g. antiarrhythmic drugs for heart attacks) + maybe when a
surrogate outcome is reliable (e.g. smoking)]
How this idea address identified barriers to improving the quality of health reporting
(Larsson A, Oxman AD, Carling C, Herrin J. Medical messages in the media – barriers and solutions to
improving medical journalism. Health Expectations 2003; 6:323-31.)
Lack of time – Structured press releases + the resources + a rapid response service for
journalists could same them lots of time and make this easy for them
Lack of knowledge – The Structured press releases + resources can provide background that
they may be lacking
Lack of space – The structured press releases can/should be short
Competition for space – The structured press releases should have good hooks / ways of
pitching the story, be entertaining and sell themselves
Commercialism – The service and press releases will be independent. Stories that focus on
advertisements or where media have a commercial interest, could be picked up by other
media without the same conflict of interest
Terminology – the resources and glossary will address this. The press releases can use plain
language and include explanations for relevant medical terminology
Expert sources – these can be linked to and provided by the service
Competition for the audience – We need to make sure that we keep the target audience in
mind when we prepare the press releases, use topics that will get their interest and structure
+ prepare the press releases in a way that will catch their interest. Prof Fair could become
part of the marketing strategy to help capture the audience
Editors – the hook / pitch should help sell the stories to editors. We will need to get
help/ideas from journalists about how to market this and address concerns about exclusivity
and completion between different outlets
Health& Living
TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2014 18:42
WRITTEN BY DIANA NABIRUMA
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30209:-energy-drinks-
could-be-bad-for-the-heart&catid=58:health-living&Itemid=89
Press release
No reason to worry about energy drinks being bad for your heart
What’s the hook?
Should you be worried about using energy drinks? A recent study reported in the Observer suggests
maybe you should be.
What’s the claim?
Energy drinks could be bad for the heart
What’s the bottom line?
The results aren’t relevant. Energy drinks may or may not have other good or bad effects, but there
is not reliable evidence that they are bad for the heart.
What’s the basis for the claim?
A study that showed that energy drinks high in caffeine and taurine (an amino acid said to enhance
athletic performance) increased heart rates by six per cent in the 18 people that were part of the
study.
Has all the reliable evidence been considered?
No. There may be other, better studies that have addressed this question.
Are the results relevant?
No. The outcome that was measured (heart rates) is a surrogate outcome (see below). It is not of
direct practical importance. If energy drinks cause a small increase in heart rate, that doesn’t mean
they are bad for your heart.
Has the treatment been tested fairly?
Can’t tell.
What are the results?
Uninteresting
Appendix 3. IHC Print Media prototype 1 (Structured Press Releases)
Informed Health Choices Project
Energy drinks could be bad for the heart
What’s the likelihood of being misled by the play of chance?
In addition to not measuring outcomes that are important to people, the study only included 18
people. That might be enough to measure a change in heart rate, but it is not enough to measure
important effects, including presumed benefits – like better athletic performance, increased
concentration and maintaining alertness – and presumed adverse effects – like heart disease,
addiction, anxiety and insomnia.
Resource
Surrogate outcomes
Surrogate outcomes are outcome measures that are not of direct practical importance but are
believed to reflect outcomes that are important.
For example, blood pressure is not directly important to patients but it is often used as an outcome
in studies because it is a risk factor for stroke and heart attacks. Showing that a medicine lowers
blood pressure is not the same as showing that it prevents strokes or heart attacks.
The effects of treatments on surrogate outcomes usually do not provide a reliable indication of
effects on outcomes that are important.
For more information see . . . [link to visualization/text or audio clips of examples of how relying on
surrogate outcomes has caused harm (e.g. antiarrhythmic drugs for heart attacks) + maybe when a
surrogate outcome is reliable (e.g. smoking)]
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 1
1. Operating procedures
2. Guides
2.1. Guide for preparing More information about this story
2.2. Guide for preparing a story
3. Checklists and worksheets
3.1. Systematic review assessment
3.2. Summary of the findings and plain language statement worksheets
3.3. Pre-publication checklist
4. Forms
4.1. Internal review form
4.2. External review form
5. Templates
5.1. Template for More information about this story
5.2. Template for stories
6. Examples
Appendices
1. Twitter List
2. Journals
3. News sources
4. Health days
Appendix 4 - Be Fair and Compare News Service - Procedures
Informed Health Choices Project
Be Fair and Compare News Service Operating Procedures and
Resources
Last updated 2014 10 04 by Andy
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 2
1. Operating procedures2014 10 03
Staff
Researcher (50% FTE)
- Screen and select claims for stories together with the journalist
- Prepare five stories per week
- Find and assess relevant systematic reviews when needed and feasible
- Coordinate internal and external review of the stories
- Manage data collection and evaluation of the service
Journalist (50% FTE)
- Screen and select claims for stories together with the journalist
- Prepare scenarios for five stories per week
- Edit five stories per week
- Prepare broadcast versions of stories
- Manage dissemination of the stories
Scope
The service will write stories about claims about the effects of treatments. Treatments include
any intervention (action) intended to improve health, including preventive, therapeutic,
rehabilitative, public health or health system interventions.
Sources of claims for stories
- Twitter (Compare and Be Fair NEWS) (Appendix 1)
- Journals (Appendix 2)
- Health news (Appendix 3)
- Health days (Appendix 4)
All these would have to be screened. Low yield resources should be identified and screed, and
other high yield sources added. We shall have to do this systematically and record how we
identified and selected resources.
Screening of sources for claims
It should be possible to automate alerts and screen these daily.
The following criteria should be applied to each hit:
1. Is there a claim about treatment effects (or a relevant claim linked to the topic; e.g. for
health days)? It should be possible to identify:
- People to whom the claim applies
- Intervention (treatment)
- Comparison treatment
- Outcome (one or more)
2. Is the claim relevant to the general public in Uganda or a large segment of the public?
3. Is it possible to concisely communicate the claim in plain language?
4. Is the topic newsworthy or can it be made newsworthy? What’s the hook?
5. Is it possible to frame a question about the claim that will make people want to read
the story to find out the answer?
One or more topics should be selected from topics that meet all five criteria. Priority should
be given to:
- Stories that are newsworthy and most likely to capture the interest of a large audience
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 3
- Stories that best illustrate relevant concepts
- Stories that illustrate concepts that have not recently been addressed in another story
Story preparation
The researcher should:
1. Complete the “More information about this story” template
2. Find a relevant systematic review, if the story is not based on a systematic review and it is
possible to find one, by:
2.1 Searching www.epistemonikos.org
2.2. If nothing is found there, searching www.pubmed.com using Clinical Queries
hedge
2.3 If nothing is found there, searching http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en using
“systematic review” (in quotes) in the search 3. Complete the Systematic review assessment form, if relevant. [To be adapted from SUPPORT Summary
assessment form]
4. Complete Summary of findings and plain language statement worksheets, if relevant. [To be adapted from the
EPOC Summary of Findings worksheets]
5. Complete the Be Fair & Compare News template
The journalist should:
1. Add or edit the scenario
2. Copy edit the story
3. Insert SMS codes + Facebook links
4. Prepare a broadcast version
Internal and external review
At least one other member of the BF&C team, who was not involved in preparing the story,
should review each story.
[We might want to set up rotations with different members of the team responsible for this each week.]
At least one external person, who is knowledgeable about the topic of the story, should review
each story. Ideally, this should be someone who is familiar with the Ugandan context, or at
least one person who is familiar with the Ugandan context.
[We will need to pilot different ways of doing this and find an efficient and pragmatic way of getting feedback
quickly. Possibilities include:
- Establishing a mail list and sending stories to everyone on the list
- Establishing a network of colleagues at Makerere with different types of expertise who are willing to do this]
The researcher, journalist or (preferably) both should make final edits, taking into account
feedback from the internal and external reviewers
Posting and disseminating stories
Prior to posting and disseminating the story, the authors should complete a pre-publication
checklist.
The journalist should send the story to all outlets that subscribe to the BF&C News service +
send a Tweet about the story.
The story and ‘More information about this story” should be posted on the BF&C Facebook
page and website.
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 4
Data management
We will file the following electronically for each story:
- The story
- More information about this story
- Systematic review assessment (if done)
- Summary of the findings and plain language statement worksheets (if done)
- The prepublication checklist
We will use these in a descriptive report of the news service.
The files for these should be named consistently; e.g. date file-type short-name; e.g.
2014 10 04 story midwives
2014 10 04 more-info midwives
Etc.
The following information will be recorded in a spreadsheet: Date Author Question Short
name People Intervention
(treatment) Comparison Outcome Concept Time to
prepare External reviewer
Notes
2014 10 04 Andy Can midwives save lives?
midwives mothers and newborns
things that midwives can do
not doing those things
survival and health
4.2 non-systematic reviews are misleading
2 hrs Alfred E. Newman [email protected]
practice story
2. Guides
The following guides should be used for preparing stories:
2.1 Guide for preparing “More information about this story”
2.2 Guide for preparing a story
3. Checklists and worksheets
3.1 Systematic review assessment – to be adapted from 3.1 SUPPORT Summary checklist
for appraising a systematic review 2014 01 08.docx
3.2 Summary of the findings and plain language statement worksheets – to be adapted
from 3.2 Worksheets for preparing a Summary of Findings using GRADE 2013 11
06.docx
3.3 Pre-publication checklist
4. Forms
4.1 Internal review form
4.2 External review form
5. Templates
5.1 Template for More information about this story
5.2 Template for stories
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 5
6. Examples
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 6
Appendix 1. Compare and Be Fair NEWS Twitter List
1. BBC AfricaVerified account @BBCAfrica
2. ben goldacre @bengoldacre
3. Best Health @BMJ_BestHealth
4. Cochrane Collab @cochranecollab
5. Cochrane Consumers @CochraneConsumr
6. Gary Schwitzer @garyschwitzer
7. HealthNewsReview.org @HealthNewsRevu
8. JAMA @JAMA_current
9. Kunnskapssenteret @kunnskapssenter
10. NHS Choices News @NHSNewsUK
11. NYTimes Health @nytimeshealth
12. PubMed Health @PubMedHealth
13. Ray Moynihan @raymoynihan
14. Reuters Africa @ReutersAfrica
15. Reuters Health @Reuters_Health
16. The BMJ @bmj_latest
17. The Cochrane Library @CochraneLibrary
18. The Lancet @TheLancet
Check + add other feeds
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 7
Appendix 2. Journals
1. Ann Intern Med
2. BMC International Health & Human Rights
3. BMJ
4. Bulletin of the World Health Organization
5. Cochrane Library
6. Global Health: Science and Practice
7. International Health
8. JAMA
9. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health
10. Lancet
11. Lancet Global Medicine
12. NEJM
13. PLoS Medicine
14. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
15. Tropical Medicine & International Health
Check:
1. Arch Dis Child
2. BJOG
3. Br J Gen Pract
4. Fam Pract
5. Global Health Action
6. J Gen Intern Med
7. J Infect Dis
8. J Pediatr
9. Obstet Gynecol
10. Pediatrics
+ other journals reviewed by Evidence Updates http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/JournalsList.asp
+ other global health journals http://www.globalhealthpolicy.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/Global-Health-Journals-2012.pdf
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 8
Appendix 3. Health news sources
1. AllAfrica Health
2. BBC NEWS Health
3. CBC News Health
4. CDC Global Health in the News
5. CNN International Edition Health
6. Global Health Frontline News
7. Global Health Hub
8. Google health news alert
9. GlobalPost World Health News
10. Healthfinder.gov Health News
11. HealthNews
12. Medical News Today
13. MedlinePlus Latest Health News
14. New Vision Health
15. New York Times Health
16. NPR Global Health
17. Daily Monitor Health Living
18. ScienceDaily Health
19. WebMD News
20. WHO News
21. World Health News
22. Yahoo News Health
23. Behind the Headlines
24. Health News Review
Add others
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 9
Appendix 4. International and National Health Days
MoH Uganda News & Updates – Upcoming Events
Official WHO health days Although there are many ‘health days’ to promote important public health issues, many of which are supported by the World Health Organization and partners, the following list represents the official WHO health days as mandated by the World Health Assembly.
World TB Day 24 March 2014
World Health Day 7 April 2014
World Immunization Week Last week of April 2014
World Malaria Day 25 April 2014
World No Tobacco Day 31 May 2014
World Blood Donor Day 14 June 2014
World Hepatitis Day 28 July 2014
World AIDS Day 1 December 2014
Full information on all WHO campaigns
PAHO
Date Title Venue City Type
14.09.2013 Caribbean Wellness Day - - International
Health Days
29.09.2013 Heart Day - - International
Health Days
05.10.2013 Inter-American Water
Day
- - International
Health Days
10.10.2013 -
10.10.2013
World Mental Health
Day
- - International
Health Days
07.04.2014 -
07.04.2014
World Health Day 2014 - - International
Health Days
26.04.2014 -
03.05.2014
Vaccination Week in the
Americas
- - International
Health Days
17.05.2014 -
17.05.2014
World Hypertension Day - - International
Health Days
Appendix_4_Be_Fair_and-Compare_ Procedures.docx 10
Date Title Venue City Type
02.06.2014 -
02.06.2014
World No Tobacco Day
2014: Raise taxes on
tobacco
PAHO
Headquarters
Washington International
Health Days
14.06.2014 -
14.06.2014
World Blood Donor Day - - International
Health Days
26.06.2014 -
26.06.2014
International Day
against Drug Abuse and
Illicit Trafficking
- - International
Health Days
28.07.2014 -
28.07.2014
World Hepatitis Day - - International
Health Days
18.09.2014 -
21.09.2014
Wellness Week - - International
Health Days
28.09.2014 -
28.09.2014
World Day Against
Rabies
- - International
Health Days
29.09.2014 -
29.09.2014
World Heart Day - - International
Health Days
10.10.2014 -
10.10.2014
World Mental Health
Day
- - International
Health Days
13.10.2014 International Day for
Disaster Reduction
- - International
Health Days
15.10.2014 Global Handwashing
Day
- - International
Health Days
16.10.2014 World Food Day - - International
Health Days
24.10.2014 World Polio Day - - International
Health Days
06.11.2014 Malaria Day in the
Americas
- - International
Health Days
BE FAIR and COMPARE NEWS A MakHealth Initiative
Is Canova a wonder drug for HIV/AIDS?
By Nsangi Allen, Health Researcher, Makerere University
Recently, in New Vision, there was a story about a Ugandan woman who made an amazing recovery from HIV/AIDS. The woman’s cousin brought her Canova and within a month of starting to use the drug, the woman was back at work, according to the report. But what do we really know about the effect of Canova on HIV/AIDS?
Doctors interviewed in the report say Canova is easy to use, prolongs the life of HIV/AIDS patients and improves their quality of life. Apparently, Canova has no side effects either. If this is all true Canova is, indeed, a wonder drug, but the truth is rarely that simple.
There are many problems with the claim that Canova is a wonder drug, but let us
focus on one: why treatments rarely work well for everyone all the time.
To understand why treatments rarely work well for everyone all the time, imagine a
mechanic told us he had built an engine that works well for every car.
Is it likely that the mechanic has built an engine that works well for every car?
No, car parts that work well for every car are rare!
Cars are complicated machines and no two models are exactly alike in form or
function. Some car parts are almost the same for most cars and work well for most,
for example windshield wipers. These parts are rare. It is common for parts to be
different from model to model, for example engines, and work well for some cars
some times, but not all cars all the time. This is why it is unlikely the mechanic has
built an engine that works well for every car.
The same goes for medicine. Just like models of cars, no two bodies are exactly alike
and bodies are even more complicated than cars. This is why treatments that work
well for everyone all the time are so rare, which means it is unlikely that Canova is a
wonder drug.
To know if Canova is a wonder drug, the effect of using the drug needs to be judged in a fair comparison. We need to be fair and compare!
For more information about the Be Fair and Compare project and how you can be fair
and compare, send an SMS with the text “BFC” to [#]. You can also find more
information on our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/bfcug.
Appendix 5 - Print story - Example: Canova and HIV Aids
